The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) is fighting the push by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (And Really Big Fires) (BATFE) to make it more difficult for Americans to own firearms covered by the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NRA-ILA’s issued the following call-to-action . . .
As we previously reported, the Obama administration, via the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, has proposed a new rule governing applications by legal entities such as trusts and corporations to make and transfer National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms. To justify the proposed rule, the administration and BATFE have stated that over 39,000 applications for transfers of NFA firearms to trusts or corporations were received in 2012 alone. Nevertheless, the agency cited not a single case in which an NFA firearm transferred to a legal entity was used in the commission of a crime.
The proposed rule would significantly complicate transfers of NFA firearms to legal entities. An especially burdensome provision, for example, would create new classes of “responsible persons” for each type of legal entity and require that each of these persons submit fingerprints and a photograph with a transfer or making application, as well as undergo a background check. BATFE seems to ignore or misunderstand that many NFA firearm owners choose to use trusts to hold their NFA firearms and other property for estate planning reasons, one of which is to simplify the transfer of the firearms to the heirs of the owner. Thus, children, including those who are very young, are often beneficiaries of trusts. The proposed rule seemingly would require even such children to be included in its expanded background check procedures.
Further complicating the transfer process, the proposed rule would require each “responsible person” of a legal entity to get a certificate or “sign-off” from a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) before a transfer could be approved. Not only will this further tie up limited government resources by potentially requiring multiple sign-offs and background checks to be done for each transfer, it will allow CLEOs who refuse to process NFA transfers for even the most law-abiding of citizens effectively to veto the transfer. In these CLEOs’ jurisdictions, the proposed rule would act as a de facto ban on the otherwise perfectly lawful transfer of NFA firearms.
BATFE is now seeking comments on the proposed rule and has made multiple commenting options available. NRA encourages you to make thoughtful and respectful comments to BATFE on the proposed rule. To comment, there are several options available:
Through the federal eRulemaking Portal;
By fax to: (202) 648-9741; or
By mail to: Brenda Raffath Friend, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 41P.
All comments must include the agency name, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the proposed rule’s docket number, ATF 41P. The federal rulemaking website has tips on writing an effective comment that covers what agencies look for in the rulemaking process.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments submitted on or before December 9, 2013. The electronic submission site will close at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on December 9th. Please note that all materials submitted for comment, including personally identifying information, will be made available to the public on the federal rulemaking website. Note, too, that comments will continue to be accepted during the government shutdown.
BATFE has already received over 1,200 comments regarding the proposed rule. We hope that the number and quality of comments in opposition to the proposed rule will encourage BATFE to abandon this poorly conceived rule, that will have zero impact on public safety, in favor of effective measures that truly target the criminal perpetrators who commit crimes.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Thanks for the update. Comments Submitted.
the word perfection comes to mind
Just another way for O to raise a tax.
200 bux was alot of money in 1934??
Guess they just want an excuse to bring some more inflation into the picture.
Since none of these items are or have ever been used in crimes.
What good is a 20 thousand dollar Thompson with out a 1000 or what the hell 5000$ tax stamp??
That’s next folks.
Maybe its time for me to use my trust for something besides making my relatives a few dollars when Im gone.
The dark spot on the FOPA of 1986 was the fact that it banned all automatic weapons made post 1986. This data was essentially them same as well. FOPA should protect people when transporting firearms through hell holes like NJ, but they still arrest and convict people for obeying the laws such as the Brian Aitkin case where the punk thug Judge Morley refused to let the jury know about FOPA. However, I bet if it was dealing with a post 1986 NFA weapon, the judge would have instructed them about it. That is correct Judge Morely, I called you a punk and you should be disbarred.
NRA-ILA also needs to question why it takes 6 to 10 months for paper work to go through even when a Sheriff has done the back ground checks and signed off on it. The tax stamp money should be going into the “general treasury” either and then they wouldn’t be understaffed so that “dog wouldn’t hunt.”
Why is it these gun ban lobbies are trotting out this “reformed” thugs and bangers?
these are the “children” they want to protect
Wow… Maybe they tapped a barricade at the Governor’s office somepoint along the way?
Wow. That is just wrong.
so he is from El Salvador . . . . . http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11240718/
is he even here legally? Is he schlepping for peace in return for keeping his green card?
There may be times to carry off body, but it should be among your last choices for concealment.
I’ve told this story before about purse carry, but I had a teacher a few years back who was a retired FBI agent. He told us about a female agent he knew who had her purse snatched, containing her gun AND badge. If it can happen to a Fed… It can happen to you or your lady…
I feel like many women default to purse carry because they’re used to carrying everything in a purse, and don’t like carrying stuff on their body. So they’re unwilling to change their habits.
what is the “(And Really Big Fires)” thing a reference too? Waco maybe?
those gunphobe moms sure are creative.
i’m going to go melt mine down right now.
I usually shoot at established ranges, an outdoor and indoor. The indoor is pistol/.22LR only doesn’t have a RSO, but with individual lanes and target runners I’ve never felt the need for one. I must fit the OFWG stereotype because every time I’m there some noob jams their gun and asks me to fix it. Even so, I’ve never witnessed any unsafe behavior by the noobs or the experianced.
I find that even at the same range, YMMV. The outdoor pistol range has 2-3 RSOs and opens every 15 min to check targets. Usually the RSOs are great and the range runs smoothly. Once I saw an obviously deaf and probably tired RSO close the range and commence firing with someone still down range, over the objections and antics of other RSOs and shooters.
Then there was this weekend. I rarely go to the “free” range. But a bunch of people I know were going shooting and there was going to be a good assortment of guns i will never be able to afford or shoo. It would be a diversion from punching holes in paper and I was excited. I brought the wife and 2 yr old as well. I’ve never witnessed so many violations of safe firearm handling. The highlights: 1. Rocky ground and backstop. 2. Imaginary firing line would drift, sometimes putting people a foot or in front of or behind other shooters. 3. There are laser shows, and then there was the poor muzzle control exhibited. 4. There were 2 instances where a car needed to drive around us and hikers came over the ridge of our back stop. Both times it was like herding cats to get people to cease fire.
5. Some one shot straight up in the air… while people were downrange.
Needless to say, I won’t repeat that experience. I would like to ask the AI: if you are shooting with a (largish?) group, do you designate a RSO even if it’s not on a formal range? I think from now on I will insist on it or am I being anal?
A small point … Unless he’s intending to go into research, if he’s going to be a pediatrician he’ll be an MD, not a Ph.D.
If you have a Ph.D., at some point – supposedly – you’ve done some questioning and original thinking. (I have my own opinions re that, depending on the flavor of degree … But I digress.). MDs generally are more about memorization, decision trees, and learning to work within a somewhat to highly specialized subset of information.
In any case, good luck.
“shutdown”, of course, does not mean that exchange of firearms will not be regulated, that arrests of firearm owners will not occur, that non-victim related “gun criminals” will be let out of prison, or that the taxes used to fund these things will not be extracted.
It means that they will continue to force people to do all the things they usually do, but with an even smaller percentage of (inefficient) services given back.
Of course they won’t “let” you have weapons that you “don’t need”. (You know, since the budget is just soooo tight.)
The only responsibility I have to myself, my family and my friends is to avoid “Gun Free Zones” and “Gun Free Zoners”. Those places and people tend to attract trouble, wherever and whoever they are.